| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ENOSPC FailedAssertion("!(RefCountErrors == 0)" |
| Date: | 2018-07-18 17:03:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobXLXNeyod0wrmFp1xeusJJtTCzZPizqwHsfr=hVKS2DA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So couldn't we use TopTransactionResourceOwner instead of
>> AuxProcessResrouceOwner? I feel a bit uneasy that bootstrap and
>> standalone-backend have *AuxProcess*ResourceOwner.
>
> Since the aux processes aren't running transactions, I didn't think
> that TopTransactionResourceOwner was appropriate. There's also
> a problem for bootstrap and standalone backend cases: those do run
> transactions and therefore create/destroy TopTransactionResourceOwner,
> leaving nothing behind for ShutdownXLOG to use if it tries to use
> that. We need an extra resowner somewhere.
FallbackResourceOwner? DefaultResourceOwner? SessionResourceOwner?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marco van Eck | 2018-07-18 17:46:26 | Have an encrypted pgpass file |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-07-18 16:59:30 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |